No. 4.
262
Patilion Faragraph
No. 31,
Petition
Paragraph
No. 31
DEAR SIR,
A. G. Chambers,
3rd November, 1998,
I BEGRET that, owing to pressure of business, your letter of the 25th ultimo should remained unanswered.
I am sorry to say that it is entirely out of the question that I should advise the Governe even if they were willing to compensate you upon the basis of buying up your godown business (w) basis they have hitherto declined to accept), to allow you to capitalize the value of that business at figure like 16 years purchase.
Unless you are prepared to very materially modify your views upon the above point and you notify me to that effect within the next few days, I shall have no option but to return all the p to His Excellency for him to award such a sum of money or such a Crown lease of new land as he in his absolute discretion think sufficient.
I am, dear Sir,
T. HOWARD, Esq.
H. E. POLLOCK, Esq.
Dear Sir.
Yours faithfully
(Signed) HENRY E, POLLOCK.
No. 5.
MARINE LOT 184.
7th November, 1898
I HAVE to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, in which you inform me t is entirely out of the question that you should advise the Government to allow me to capitalise the of Godown business at any figure like 16 years purchase, and that unless I very materially my views you will return the papers to His Excellency for him to award such a sum of money or a Crown lease of new land as he may in his absolute discretion think sufficient.
my
2.Either I have not made my claim to compensation sufficiently clear, or I do not under your letter.
3.--You are aware that ou account of my health I offered to sacrifice a large sum in ord obtain a speedy settlement of the matter after nine years suspense and uncertainty as to wha Governor, representing the Marine Lot holders, would do about compensation; and, as I have al informed you, I am willing to accept a sum, lower than the very lowest sum at which the value of Lot No. 184 could ever fairly be assessed, namely, $200,000 as an even sum, as the value of the M Lot.
4.-My Godown business, which consisted chiefly in storing goods and lending money goods stored in our own Godowns I could have removed to other Godowns if there had been any which I could have acquired for the purpose, but my loss and consequent claim to compensatio Marine Lot No. 184 would bave remained identically the same, as I did not include any loss of bu in my original claim, and therefore there is no claim for such loss included in my modified and re claim of $200,000.
5.---I have never asked the Government to buy up my Godown business, nor have I asked allowed to capitalise that business at 163 years purchase as you seem to imply, but merely the net re
6.My claim is for the destruction of our Marine Lot, which, by the Reclamation wo front, is now no longer a Marine Lot, nor could it be sold as such after the passing of the Recla Ordinance in 1889. The whole value of a Marine Lot, depends upon its having direct access water of the Harbour. That access being utterly put an end to so far as the use of my buil specially built as Godowns, is concerned, the Marine Lot, No. 184, so far as I am concerned as ow also utterly put an end to.
7.The question then is, what is the condition of the Lot now that it is no longer a Lot, and the answer has been admitted on all sides that it is that of an Inland Lot, and can or appropriately described as such, as Inland Lots are known in this Colony.
8. Thus the compensation to which I am entitled is the value of Marine Lot, 184 befo loss caused by destruction of access occurred, less any sum which the Lot will realise as an Inland 9.-The only discussion which I could anticipate would be the best method of ascertaining values. The value as an Inland Lot can only be ascertained by sale at auction, or by tender, or pr at an agreed figure, but it occurred to me that it would be more valuable if the Govenment wou with it the Reclamation in front, and, as it is only the Government who can give this increased v have not taken any step to ascertain the value by sale to the detriment of the Government or Lot holders upon whom the payment of compensation may fall, with which question, I believe, Į
no way concerned.
10.-The Attorney General, the Houble. W. M. Goodman, having informed the full Court that the Government had never said that they would not fairly and rightly assess the compensation, even if only morally bound, I, as you will no doubt have observed from the former papers, placed myself unreservedly in the hands of His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government, and following the course which I believed was the only proper course to pursue, I forwarded my claim, through the Colonial Secretary, based upon the not rentals of the Godowns actually received by me, which I venture to affirmi is the only correct way of arriving at the fair value, at all events, it is the way adopted by London Valuers.
11-The two Judges, Sir James Russell and Sir Fielding Clarke, in the City Hall case, said that the greatest care should be taken that no injury be inflicted without adequate compensation, but you object to pay for actual loss of rentals since 1895, caused by obstruction of access, as also the casto- mary 10 per cent. for disturbance of business. I have not claimed.
Loss on money lending on goods, stored in our Godowns
12.-As you are aware, the rentals from freehold land in England are capitalised at 333 years purchase, and for freehold land and buildings in similar cases to ours at 20 to 25 years purchase, and therefore I believed, as I still believe, that considering the term of our Crown lease is 999 years, and therefore equal to frechoki, I was only acting fairly and rightly in showing the capitalised value at 164 years purchase for this colony.
18-My figures have been checked and my books examined by Mr. Nicolle, the local auditor and I know he has found my figures correct to the last cent.
14-No reason has ever been given to me why I should not find the value of the Marine Lot, by capitalising the net rentals as I have done, and yet I am told that unless I very materially modify my views upon that point, that is, as I read your letter, unless I am prepared to commit an act of great injuctice to myself and to my co-owner, you will return all the papers to His Excellency.
15.-I have no objection to this course, for I am satisfied that you would not advise His Excellency to exercise his discretion so as to effect a manifest injustice, and I feel sure that His Excellency in exercising his discretion will not do so for the purpose of doing a wrongful injury, nor without giving consideration to my evidence.
16.-If yon require further evidence of value from me by surveyors or others, I am quite ready to urnish it, but I wish it to be clearly understood that if my sacrifice down to $200,000 be not accepted as value of our Marine Lot, I reserve to myself the right to withdraw this offer and place myself in the ds of my professional advisers.
17.-In justice to myself I will ask you to kindly forward this letter 10 His Excellency.
I am, dear Sir,
Yours truly
No 6.
(Signed) THOMAS HOWARD.
Hongkong.
Colonial Secretary's Office,
22nd November, 1898.
Paragraph
ence to previous correspondence on the subject of the claim for compensation for the Petition you and Mr. M. J. D. Stephens as lessees of Marine Lot 184 in consequence of the No, s tion Works, I have the honour to transmit the enclosed award made by His Excellency the
Sering the Government together with a Cheque on the Colonial Treasury for $15,000.
I have the honour to be.
Eno.
Sir,
Your most Obedient Servant,
(Signed) T. SERCOMBE SMITH,
Acting Colonial Secretary.
s conferred upon mo by Section 7 Subsection (VI) of Ordinance 16 of 1889, Thomas Howard and M. J. D. Stephens lessees of Marine Lot 184 the sum of of compensation for the injury that they have sustained by e Praya
(Signed) WILSON"
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.